Bowman v. Kerik

271 A.D.2d 225, 706 N.Y.S.2d 327, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3838
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 4, 2000
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 271 A.D.2d 225 (Bowman v. Kerik) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bowman v. Kerik, 271 A.D.2d 225, 706 N.Y.S.2d 327, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3838 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.), entered January 13, 1999, which, inter alia, granted respondents’ cross motion to dismiss the petition pursuant to CPLR article 78 challenging termination of petitioners’ employment as New York City correction officers, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Since petitioners necessarily admitted in connection with their guilty pleas that, “with intent to evade any tax imposed under * * * [an] income or earnings tax statute, or any requirement thereof or any lawful requirement of the tax commission thereunder,” they either “fail[ed] to make, render, sign, certify or file any return, or to supply any information within the time required by or under the provisions of such article or any such statute,” or “with like intent, [did] supply any false or fraudulent information” (Tax Law § 1801 [a]), their public offices were vacated automatically on conviction, the misdemeanors of which they were convicted having involved “willful deceit or a calculated disregard for honest dealings” (Matter of Duffy v Ward, 81 NY2d 127, 135). Because petitioners were terminated upon their convictions by operation of Public Officers Law § 30, a self-executing statute (see, Matter of Foley v Bratton, 92 NY2d 781, 787-789), no pretermination hearing was required (cf., [226]*226Matter of Farrell v Safir, 259 AD2d 328). Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Williams, Ellerin, Wallach and Saxe, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Depamphilis v. Kelly
107 A.D.3d 611 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Depamphilis v. Kelly
36 Misc. 3d 514 (New York Supreme Court, 2012)
Whitfield v. Fraser
272 F. Supp. 2d 340 (S.D. New York, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
271 A.D.2d 225, 706 N.Y.S.2d 327, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3838, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bowman-v-kerik-nyappdiv-2000.